University Physics V · topic UPV-11.07
Degeneracy, the Runge-Lenz vector, and the hidden so(4) algebra
Connect the ideas, make your working visible, and test the result. Use the hints when you need a starting point; open the full solution after your attempt.
Further practice
Work through a fresh case before tackling the extension.
Degeneracy, Runge–Lenz and the hidden so(4): predict a finite change
The Runge–Lenz vector is a second conserved vector, over and above angular momentum, that exists only for a strictly 1/r potential; together with L it generates so(4), whose irreducible representations are hydrogen's n²-fold levels. Use the supplied topic model Y_out = norb*360*(1/sqrt(max(1-eps,0.05))-1), where Y_out is TOTAL TURN AFTER N ORBITS (deg). The output symbol Y_out is distinct from all input symbols. ^ denotes a power; π = 3.141592653589793; sqrt(x) means √x; max(a,b) selects the larger value. eps is Force-law offset ε in F ∝ r^−(2+ε), dimensionless. Keep norb (Orbits elapsed N) = 3 orbits fixed. For this exercise use only -0.383125 ≤ eps ≤ 0.483125 on this continuous branch. A grid of test settings is an input restriction for this exercise, not by itself a claim of physical quantisation. This calculation retains the topic model's stated assumptions; it does not extend them to a different physical setup. Calculate Y_out at eps = -0.19255 and -0.071275. Find the signed output change ΔY_out and the average sensitivity ΔY_out/Δeps across this interval. State whether the response increases or decreases; distinguish this interval average from a derivative at one point.
TOTAL TURN AFTER N ORBITS against eps
Predictions from the supplied Degeneracy, Runge–Lenz and the hidden so(4) model, with all other inputs fixed as stated in the question. 5 calibration points support a trend comparison; they are not measured data or a straight-line law.
Vertical axis (y): TOTAL TURN AFTER N ORBITS / deg
Horizontal axis (x): eps: Force-law offset ε in F ∝ r^−(2+ε)
Axes show the supplied calibration interval; the origin may lie outside the plot.
Read the exact data as a table
| eps: Force-law offset ε in F ∝ r^−(2+ε) | TOTAL TURN AFTER N ORBITS / deg |
|---|---|
| -0.383125 | -161.6821209040252 |
| -0.1665625 | -80.06965150147606 |
| 0.04999999999999999 | 28.056620251966535 |
| 0.2665625 | 181.07872747149491 |
| 0.48312499999999997 | 422.2111876287573 |
These are the supplied values, not a worked answer. No fitted trend is drawn.
Show a hint
Substitute each value of eps separately while keeping every other input fixed, then subtract in the same order.
Reveal the worked solution
- At eps = -0.19255, substitute into Y_out = norb*360*(1/sqrt(max(1-eps,0.05))-1): Y₀ = -91.0247 deg.
- At eps = -0.071275, the same fixed-parameter model gives Y₁ = -36.5461 deg.
- Signed change: ΔY_out = Y₁ − Y₀ = 54.4786 deg; the input change is Δeps = 0.121275.
- Average sensitivity is ΔY_out/Δeps = 449.215 deg per unit input. Its positive sign means that this response increases over the specified interval.
- This is a secant slope between two settings. It equals a point derivative only for a locally linear relation or in a justified small-interval limit.
Answer Y₀ = -91.0247 deg, Y₁ = -36.5461 deg; ΔY_out = 54.4786 deg; average sensitivity = 449.215 deg per unit input.
Compare the assumptions, method and units with your attempt. Explain any correction before trying another question.
Extra challenging questions
Work through the linked stages and explain what each result means.
Degeneracy, Runge–Lenz and the hidden so(4): infer an input with uncertainty
The Runge–Lenz vector is a second conserved vector, over and above angular momentum, that exists only for a strictly 1/r potential; together with L it generates so(4), whose irreducible representations are hydrogen's n²-fold levels. Use the supplied topic model Y_out = norb*360*(1/sqrt(max(1-eps,0.05))-1), where Y_out is TOTAL TURN AFTER N ORBITS (deg). The output symbol Y_out is distinct from all input symbols. ^ denotes a power; π = 3.141592653589793; sqrt(x) means √x; max(a,b) selects the larger value. eps is Force-law offset ε in F ∝ r^−(2+ε), dimensionless. Keep norb (Orbits elapsed N) = 3 orbits fixed. For this exercise use only -0.383125 ≤ eps ≤ 0.483125 on this continuous branch. A grid of test settings is an input restriction for this exercise, not by itself a claim of physical quantisation. This calculation retains the topic model's stated assumptions; it does not extend them to a different physical setup. A reading gives Y_out = 88.190655 deg, with a bounded reading uncertainty ±37.481 deg. Treat the model and all fixed inputs as exact for this exercise; the bound is not a standard deviation. First estimate the unknown eps by straight-line interpolation between the two endpoint predictions. Then solve the actual model on the stated branch to an absolute input tolerance of 0.000086625, using a numerical bracket if required. Find the full input interval consistent with the bounded reading uncertainty and compare it with a symmetric input-error assumption. Do not assume that the supplied calibration points prove monotonicity outside this branch.
TOTAL TURN AFTER N ORBITS against eps
Predictions from the supplied Degeneracy, Runge–Lenz and the hidden so(4) model, with all other inputs fixed as stated in the question. 5 calibration points support a trend comparison; they are not measured data or a straight-line law.
Vertical axis (y): TOTAL TURN AFTER N ORBITS / deg
Horizontal axis (x): eps: Force-law offset ε in F ∝ r^−(2+ε)
Axes show the supplied calibration interval; the origin may lie outside the plot.
Read the exact data as a table
| eps: Force-law offset ε in F ∝ r^−(2+ε) | TOTAL TURN AFTER N ORBITS / deg |
|---|---|
| -0.383125 | -161.6821209040252 |
| -0.1665625 | -80.06965150147606 |
| 0.04999999999999999 | 28.056620251966535 |
| 0.2665625 | 181.07872747149491 |
| 0.48312499999999997 | 422.2111876287573 |
These are the supplied values, not a worked answer. No fitted trend is drawn.
Show a hint
The model's endpoint predictions bracket the reading. Solve Y_out(eps) = Y_measured and then solve again at Y_measured − u and Y_measured + u; a nonlinear inverse can give unequal input deviations.
Reveal the worked solution
- Endpoint predictions are Y_out(-0.383125) = -161.682 deg and Y_out(0.483125) = 422.211 deg. The target lies between them. On the selected branch the response is strictly increasing.
- Endpoint interpolation gives eps_line = -0.383125 + (88.1907 − -161.682)(0.483125 − -0.383125)/(422.211 − -161.682) = -0.0124198. This estimates the inverse of the endpoint chord, rather than assuming that chord is the physical model.
- Use the actual equation, not the chord, and bracket its root. Evaluating the midpoint and retaining the sign-changing half-interval gives eps = 0.145288; substituting back gives Y_out = 88.190655 deg.
- The interpolation error in the input is |eps_line − eps| = 0.157707. This is larger than the requested numerical tolerance.
- Invert both limits Y_out = 50.709655 deg and 125.67166 deg. Sort the roots even if the response decreases: 0.087684 ≤ eps ≤ 0.197603.
- The lower and upper input deviations are 0.0576035 and 0.0523153. They differ because the inverse response is nonlinear; a symmetric error bar would only be a local approximation. This interval includes reading uncertainty only, not model error or uncertainty in fixed inputs.
Answer eps ≈ 0.145288; compatible interval [0.087684, 0.197603]. Endpoint interpolation gives -0.0124198.
Compare the assumptions, method and units with your attempt. Explain any correction before trying another question.